Parenting and the Government

[palefrost]

The topic of government interference with raising children has been something I have been watching for a while. I think its over stepping to assume that all parents don’t have a clue how to raise the children they have and the government interferes where it shouldn’t. for example :



A judge ordered Friday that a 16-year-old boy named Starchild Abraham Cherrix who wanted to use alternative treatment for his cancer be reported to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors think is necessary, forbes.com cited the family's attorney as saying.

The judge also found the parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment. Starchild received treatment from a Mexican clinic which advised he use a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements, the family's lawyer John Stepanovich was cited as saying.

In addition, the parents named Jay and Rose Cherrix, living in Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, Stepanovich said.

The parents were frustrated and planned to appeal.


Has anyone followed this case? What is the state's interest in the children of concern? Who grants the State the power to override the natural parenting right?

I thought the choice as to what food and drug to use is a person's basic human right. When does another have the right to make such a decision for others?

[OneofaKind]

I hadn't previously heard this case.

I guess a question that I would ask is whether the alternative means that they were using have been tested?

In as much as I agree that Government has the propensity to interfer, I believe there are times that they have to.

[sarah]

I don't think it would have mattered if the alternative methods have been tested or not. there are religious groups who are allowed to deny medical treatment alltogether because of religious beliefs. there is a bit of a dangerous precident here based upon the religious/ medical cases that have come before.
there have been cases in the past in which parents have denied their children medical treatment which could have saved their life, and it was deemed constitutionally protected. I am not sure where this current case falls, but depending on the childs knowledge he may have been able to have made an informed decision based on his personal beliefs. and I think based on the maturity, reasoning, and knowledge of this boy the government may not have had the rights to intervene. but I stress the fact that if the boy is not mature and well informed the government may have been right. my oppinion will be based more on the boy and his family's reasoning than which alternative path they opted for.

[Word2Action]

This is quite the odd case. I believe that the government cannot make laws that cover every moral aspect in life but they can try. I think they are trying everything they can to help the kid in this case from this bit of information.

[palefrost]

Blah it Irks me!!
Governmental actions like this are a direct result of too many incompetent parents not doing right by their children and now the government feels they are entitled to dictate the child rearing of all parents. Its just another example and unintended consequence of the parental abdication of their responsibilities to the government. :thumbdown:

[vicki2]

First, I don't have children so I've not paid as much attention to all this as I probably should. But living in the U.K. for a year now has certainly opened my eyes to 'nannying' people. I recently read an article in the local paper about how 'happiness' was going to be taught in the schools. Huh? Yes, that's what I thought ...but they're going to dedicate a certain amount of time to the art of being happy. I just wonder if a kid is made unhappy by the happy classes if they'll let them not take part!

[palefrost]

If you look closely at the school systems its all about brainwashing children into society. I know that sounds strange but you are made to recite the plague of allegiance at a early age and they want closely the social development of children. Academics takes a back seat. I'm not surprised to hear of this..

[vicki2]

Sometimes I wonder if parents don't know how to parent very well these days, or if the government just assumes they don't. Of course, we all see parents who are lazy and probably shouldn't even have kids. I guess that's what schools are trying to make up for, but at the expense of academics which I reall think wrong!

[palefrost]

Well if we see a horror story in the news we immediately blame the government. The "Where were you guys??" Stuff starts and a witch hunt of investigation on what went wrong starts up. Its incredible dumb if you think about it.

So i guess that is why they keep watching over all parents. Because a few ass**oles cant do it right and everyone wants someone to pay when the **** hits the fan.

[sarah]

I agree with you palefrost, if we wont to blame the government we have to be willing to have them watchdogging us to make sure we can't blame them for everything. sad as it may be, even the government has to cover its own a**.

[sarah]

It is people like this who force the government to decide how our children are raised..
I also don't think this woman got nearly the punishment she deserved. check it out:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2315671&page=1

[vicki2]

The woman should have her children taken away from her after the six months in jail ...that's disgusting. At least, the husband called the police, and he'll get custody!

[Brandon]

Just because your kids tell you they want to ride in the trunk for 8 hours, does not mean parents should do it. Remember your the boss not your children.

[palefrost]

Its so sad when you read crap like that. This one really upset me. Dont read if you dont want its really sad. http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-31/1155307559175400.xml&coll=6 If i met this woman i would beat the crap out of her.

[sarah]

I found this on CNN, and I think this is a good resolution to the court having stuck its nose into a family's buisnessb...
Virginia court allows teen cancer victim to receive alternative treatment

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Virginia court Wednesday allowed a teenage boy battling cancer to forgo chemotherapy and receive an alternative treatment.
A consent decree was signed to allow Abraham Cherrix, 16, to receive an alternative treatment from a specialist in Mississippi.
Virginia's Department of Social Services had argued that if Abraham Cherrix, 16, did not undergo chemotherapy, the most common treatment for cancer, it would constitute medical neglect. Cherrix and his family had favored the Hoxsey treatment, which involves herbal medicines.
Speaking after the ruling, Cherrix expressed his relief that the court battle was over and he would be able to move forward with his treatment. -- From CNN Correspondent Joe Johns and Senior Producer Steve Turnham (Posted 10:54 a.m.)

[Paula62]

It's really a matter of finding the right spot on the very gray line. Government does, and I believe should, have programs to protect children from neglect and abuse. And this is a fairly recent development in our history. So let me pose this quesiton: If a five year old child was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor for which the medically agreed treatment was surgical removal, would you consider the parents neglectful if they just never got around to scheduling the surgery? What if they made a considered decision not to do the surgery because they believe it would be a sin against god to alter the body? What if the child were 17 and was the one who believed it was a sin ? What if the child were five and the tumor was benign but severely disfiguring?

You get my point.

[sarah]

I was refering to the 17 year old boys specific case.
not all cases

[palefrost]

I found this on CNN, and I think this is a good resolution to the court having stuck its nose into a family's buisnessb...
Virginia court allows teen cancer victim to receive alternative treatment

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Virginia court Wednesday allowed a teenage boy battling cancer to forgo chemotherapy and receive an alternative treatment.
A consent decree was signed to allow Abraham Cherrix, 16, to receive an alternative treatment from a specialist in Mississippi.
Virginia's Department of Social Services had argued that if Abraham Cherrix, 16, did not undergo chemotherapy, the most common treatment for cancer, it would constitute medical neglect. Cherrix and his family had favored the Hoxsey treatment, which involves herbal medicines.
Speaking after the ruling, Cherrix expressed his relief that the court battle was over and he would be able to move forward with his treatment. -- From CNN Correspondent Joe Johns and Senior Producer Steve Turnham (Posted 10:54 a.m.)

This is great news. Let the kid decide what he wants to do. the last time he had chemo he said it almost killed him. I think we all have the right to decide how we want to go out. Lets give him some dignity

[sarah]

to me, it all comes down to the fact that we have the right to choose what medical treatment we want to undergo. no one should be able to force treatment on another person. (children however are the responsability of their care givers)

[Paula62]

The minor in this case was 16, i also seem to remember that his parents were in agreement with his decision. he had already undergone one round of chemo, and refused the second round.
I think the gov should butt out....this is a personal choice and he shouldn't be required to explain his actions. His doctors had told him what he was facing. This isn't any different than any right to die case ie, Terry Schaivo...Tom Delays father, or any person facing a terminal illness who decides to triple his pain meds..... i do think if the kid had been any younger the court would have been right to at least look into the circumstances....but at 16 if he is otherwise mentally fit, and his parents support it....it's their choice

[sarah]

So long as the person is mentally ready and able to make such a decision, I agree that the government has no place in the decision making process. I also agree that had the child been younger, or unable to fully make such a decision the government should have the right to look into the case.